NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Austreylia wrote:The evidence shows that a bunch of women and children died because feds started attacking a building.

You'll have no issue with this, but will start hysterically shrieking when feds start arresting people who have taken part in riots.

Let’s not forget you wanted the jury to acquit Chauvin just to spite and anger people.

This guy constantly repeats this line to me.

I don't want him banned, just told to quit it and to quit following me around to try to use it against me, no matter the argument.

Austreylia wrote:This guy constantly repeats this line to me.

Did you say it? Then it's not harassment.

Austreylia wrote:I don't want him banned

Good, because we're not banning him.

Austreylia wrote: quit following me around to try to use it against me, no matter the argument.

At a glance, most of your arguments are in threads about social justice events, and you appear to enjoy taking the most trollish position in them. As such, pointing that fact out to other thread participants is neither harassment nor threadjacking.

Frisbeeteria wrote:At a glance, most of your arguments are in threads about social justice events, and you appear to enjoy taking the most trollish position in them. As such, pointing that fact out to other thread participants is neither harassment nor threadjacking.

Yes, it is harassment, when it's brought up in subjects to which it isn't related.

Though it likely won't change anything, I want a second opinion on this as a matter of course.

and you appear to enjoy taking the most trollish position in them

That almost seems to break your own rules on the offence of "troll naming".

A mod saying in the moderation forum that someone's posts are troll-ish, while also explaining a ruling is not trollnaming. Trollnaming is a form of flamebait, for example somebody making a post to the effect of "So-and-so is a troll." with no moderation report nor actual content relative to the conversation. Fris acting in an official capacity regarding your (and Lumen's) posts is none of those things.

And seconding Fris' ruling. Bringing up your prior arguments in current, related arguments isn't harassment. It's debate. If you don't like San Lumen bringing up your prior arguments, utilize your Foe list. Or perhaps consider your own arguments more carefully before making them, so you're not giving your debate opponents loads of easy ammunition.

But the two weren’t related in literally any way.

Like I said, twice.

Austreylia wrote:But the two weren’t related in literally any way.

Like I said, twice.

The ruling has been made, regardless.